oss_report_export

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the tool produces Markdown and JSON artifacts and returns a path. However, it does not say where files are written, whether existing files are overwritten, or what permissions are needed for a write-style export.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the format and the return value front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It borders on under-specification rather than being padded, so it earns a high but not perfect mark.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin: it omits which report is exported, which project scope project_id selects, and where the path points.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter project_id, and the description never mentions it. With the schema providing no meaning for the parameter, the description should compensate but adds nothing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('내보낸다' / exports) and resource (리포트 / report), plus the output format (Markdown + JSON). It does not distinguish itself from sibling report tools such as oss_report_coverage or oss_report_features, so the agent cannot tell which report is being exported.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of oss_report_coverage or oss_report_features, and no statement of preconditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.